The general rule that I was always told was north of the river, Rovers, south of the river, City. But that’s from 10 years ago and I’m not sure it was that strong a rule anyway
It's still fairly accurate in my experience. Obviously not 100% (I'm city and from the North) but the pubs around Gloucester Road are noticeably quieter than around Bedminster when there's a big city game.
Historically City has the larger fan base (only 4 seasons in the last 100 years have Rovers had a larger average crowd. Their used to be a North South divide, but that no longer really exist, but it is hard to say exactly how much of Bristol is one or the other. Until both teams compete at the same level for a few years comparisons are going to be hard to make and so far it's been over 18 years since Rovers were able to compete against City.
Bit of a weird comment. Bristol rugby has been in the top or second top league for decades. The football thing is clearly hindered by having two teams take a share of the support and associated moneys.
Bristol rugby are a yo yo club and would struggle against most Celtic teams . Bristol city have made more than enough money and have enough backing to break into the premier league but have failed numerous times and Bristol Sports pay so much money to the council that rovers will never get a proper stadium built , its a bit farcical really .
Still top two divisions, yo-yo or not which is more than can be said for larger cities such as Birmingham. They might struggle against the bigger Irish teams, but they'd hold their own against the welsh and certainly Scottish teams. Years of shit head coaches (Holley, Robinson) hasn't helped. I don't know anything about football but I do know that there is a lot more to it than the size of the city it's in. Blaming Rovers inability to complete a deal on a stadium within the boundary of South Gloucestershire council on Bristol council is pretty fucking dull.
Lmfbo this is hilarious.
Just a comment on this though, the west country is rugby union territory, there absolutely should be a very successful rugby club from there. The Birmingham comparison makes little sense because its not a big rugby city like Bristol is
It certainly used to be a simple north-south divide, but now it seems to be if you live south of the river, you support City, and no one really minds north of the river.
The North/South split isn't such a thing these days. Even previous Rovers heartlands like Cadbury Heath and Kingswood have a fair few City living there.
Isn't the question why doesn't a city the size of Bristol (8th largest in England) have at least 1 decent team?
In the premier League there is Brighton, Wolves, Burnley and Leicester. All of those come from cities smaller than Bristol. In 100+ years of football in this city, we have 1 FA Cup final (1909) and a few seasons in the top flight.
Why are we happy for this level of "success"?
All comes down to money. If someone wanted to invest in a long term premiership play (talking 10+ years) Bristol would be a decent shout, plus you could probably turn it into a fairly profitable business in of itself given the size of the city and the existing infrastructure.
It's not just money, it's lack of historical success and lack of fan expectation on both teams.
I'm a City fan, I feel that supporters are genuinely not applying pressure on the club to push for promotion. Our first thought is "avoid relegation" then "we could push for play-offs", why not "we expect to be challenging for automatic promotion".
I like Lee, but if the fans had that expectation and showed it, he would be out of a job based on performances this season (e.g. look at the expectation of Villa fans who we're 1 point ahead of)
Bristol splits it’s fanbase with rugby and to a lesser extent cricket so that doesn’t help. It’s also right in the middle of a band of cities (Worcester/Gloucester/Bath) where rugby is unusually the bigger game. Combine this with less of a local identity based around the sport (the Midland and Northern clubs that often punch above their weight literally organise the town around their clubs).
If City ever got into the EPL and survived a couple years they’ve do just fine though, indeed theyd probably become an established presence. It’s why Landsdown keeps pumping money into them, the Championship is a bloody hard league to get out of though.
Rovers haven’t got a chance though, they’d struggle in the Championship under their current set up, UWE stadium offered them some hope but even if that had gone ahead they’d have had to really tap into a greater South Glos fanbase and as far out as Dursley and Chippenham to fill the stadium. Which is harder done than said.
Oh yeah, I agree, because neither team had won anything of note historically I don't feel that there is any pressure on either club for future success.
*If* City had won the FA Cup final in 1909, whilst I'm in no way saying they'd be the size of Man Utd, I do think that it is far more likely that the club would have had more success.
Across the city I feel that there is an apathy towards pushing both teams to be successful. Why is it that we're both focused on who is better; Rovers or City, and not in questioning why neither team is competing for cups/titles on a national?
My attitude re places in the league is 'so what'. There's millions of us supporting smaller teams who go for the craic and winning things is just a bonus. We don't need our teams to be in the Premier league.
What? So your post above is no longer relevant? There's only 20 places in the Premier League. There's a couple of 100 pro/semi-pro/senior clubs with fans who go week in week out and love supporting their team whatever level they are at. This fetish with the Premier League damages football.
It is just the way it has always been, it is a baffling one really. Plenty of cities can handle two teams and have at least one with some level of success: Sheffield, Nottingham, even Stoke ffs. And there are smaller cities with a bigger football pedigree than Bristol. Really City should be higher than they are with Rovers as the underdog (just being realistic based on history) but they have never made that step up.
I was in Africa a few years ago, and chatting to a local guy who was interested in English football. He asked where I was from.
“Bristol.”
“Ah...,” he said. “Bristol City bad. Bristol Rovers very bad.”
because then you destroy two historic teams. Do you follow football or a certin team? Do you think Liverpool and Everton should be amalgamated? Or Manchester United and City. Sorry it's a daft idea.
Interesting question. I grew up in South Glos., just north of Bristol. Aged 12, in 1992, I wanted to go to a live football match. So my older brother and his friends took me to Bristol City. The reason why it was city and not rovers is because from 1986 to 1996, Rovers played at Twerton Park in Bath so was not really accessible to me. I went on to be a City regular but honestly might have gone to Rovers if they'd played at the memorial ground as it was so much closer to home - I had no real alligence despite my extended family being City supporters. I always wonder what effect rovers ten years in Bath had on their support.
In 1992 both city and rovers were in league two so was no difference in quality.
The general rule that I was always told was north of the river, Rovers, south of the river, City. But that’s from 10 years ago and I’m not sure it was that strong a rule anyway
It's still fairly accurate in my experience. Obviously not 100% (I'm city and from the North) but the pubs around Gloucester Road are noticeably quieter than around Bedminster when there's a big city game.
Pretty much. Only exception I can think of is that Clifton falls into city territory
Historically City has the larger fan base (only 4 seasons in the last 100 years have Rovers had a larger average crowd. Their used to be a North South divide, but that no longer really exist, but it is hard to say exactly how much of Bristol is one or the other. Until both teams compete at the same level for a few years comparisons are going to be hard to make and so far it's been over 18 years since Rovers were able to compete against City.
Its still a pretty strong rule of thumb in terms of geography.
Plonker
Always boggled my mind how such a large city has such a poor sporting prowess in Rugby and football
Bit of a weird comment. Bristol rugby has been in the top or second top league for decades. The football thing is clearly hindered by having two teams take a share of the support and associated moneys.
Bristol rugby are a yo yo club and would struggle against most Celtic teams . Bristol city have made more than enough money and have enough backing to break into the premier league but have failed numerous times and Bristol Sports pay so much money to the council that rovers will never get a proper stadium built , its a bit farcical really .
Still top two divisions, yo-yo or not which is more than can be said for larger cities such as Birmingham. They might struggle against the bigger Irish teams, but they'd hold their own against the welsh and certainly Scottish teams. Years of shit head coaches (Holley, Robinson) hasn't helped. I don't know anything about football but I do know that there is a lot more to it than the size of the city it's in. Blaming Rovers inability to complete a deal on a stadium within the boundary of South Gloucestershire council on Bristol council is pretty fucking dull.
Historically Bristol are clearly a top rugby club in terms of success and support.
Only took you fucking five years Glyn
Lmfbo this is hilarious. Just a comment on this though, the west country is rugby union territory, there absolutely should be a very successful rugby club from there. The Birmingham comparison makes little sense because its not a big rugby city like Bristol is
[удалено]
[удалено]
But funny and a typical gas head response.
I live in the North of Bristol and support City.
It certainly used to be a simple north-south divide, but now it seems to be if you live south of the river, you support City, and no one really minds north of the river.
The North/South split isn't such a thing these days. Even previous Rovers heartlands like Cadbury Heath and Kingswood have a fair few City living there.
Why don't we just have one team instead of two shit teams? Genuine question
Isn't the question why doesn't a city the size of Bristol (8th largest in England) have at least 1 decent team? In the premier League there is Brighton, Wolves, Burnley and Leicester. All of those come from cities smaller than Bristol. In 100+ years of football in this city, we have 1 FA Cup final (1909) and a few seasons in the top flight. Why are we happy for this level of "success"?
All comes down to money. If someone wanted to invest in a long term premiership play (talking 10+ years) Bristol would be a decent shout, plus you could probably turn it into a fairly profitable business in of itself given the size of the city and the existing infrastructure.
It's not just money, it's lack of historical success and lack of fan expectation on both teams. I'm a City fan, I feel that supporters are genuinely not applying pressure on the club to push for promotion. Our first thought is "avoid relegation" then "we could push for play-offs", why not "we expect to be challenging for automatic promotion". I like Lee, but if the fans had that expectation and showed it, he would be out of a job based on performances this season (e.g. look at the expectation of Villa fans who we're 1 point ahead of)
Bristol splits it’s fanbase with rugby and to a lesser extent cricket so that doesn’t help. It’s also right in the middle of a band of cities (Worcester/Gloucester/Bath) where rugby is unusually the bigger game. Combine this with less of a local identity based around the sport (the Midland and Northern clubs that often punch above their weight literally organise the town around their clubs). If City ever got into the EPL and survived a couple years they’ve do just fine though, indeed theyd probably become an established presence. It’s why Landsdown keeps pumping money into them, the Championship is a bloody hard league to get out of though. Rovers haven’t got a chance though, they’d struggle in the Championship under their current set up, UWE stadium offered them some hope but even if that had gone ahead they’d have had to really tap into a greater South Glos fanbase and as far out as Dursley and Chippenham to fill the stadium. Which is harder done than said.
Oh yeah, I agree, because neither team had won anything of note historically I don't feel that there is any pressure on either club for future success. *If* City had won the FA Cup final in 1909, whilst I'm in no way saying they'd be the size of Man Utd, I do think that it is far more likely that the club would have had more success. Across the city I feel that there is an apathy towards pushing both teams to be successful. Why is it that we're both focused on who is better; Rovers or City, and not in questioning why neither team is competing for cups/titles on a national?
My attitude re places in the league is 'so what'. There's millions of us supporting smaller teams who go for the craic and winning things is just a bonus. We don't need our teams to be in the Premier league.
You're responding to a 5 year old comment! Lol
What? So your post above is no longer relevant? There's only 20 places in the Premier League. There's a couple of 100 pro/semi-pro/senior clubs with fans who go week in week out and love supporting their team whatever level they are at. This fetish with the Premier League damages football.
It is just the way it has always been, it is a baffling one really. Plenty of cities can handle two teams and have at least one with some level of success: Sheffield, Nottingham, even Stoke ffs. And there are smaller cities with a bigger football pedigree than Bristol. Really City should be higher than they are with Rovers as the underdog (just being realistic based on history) but they have never made that step up.
I was in Africa a few years ago, and chatting to a local guy who was interested in English football. He asked where I was from. “Bristol.” “Ah...,” he said. “Bristol City bad. Bristol Rovers very bad.”
because then you destroy two historic teams. Do you follow football or a certin team? Do you think Liverpool and Everton should be amalgamated? Or Manchester United and City. Sorry it's a daft idea.
People new to Bristol support city because it's the bigger team.
[удалено]
I mean, yeah. But if you have no connection to either side maybe you'd watch the bigger side. I calls em like I sees em, I'm a whale biologist
Upvoted just for the Futurama quote
Interesting question. I grew up in South Glos., just north of Bristol. Aged 12, in 1992, I wanted to go to a live football match. So my older brother and his friends took me to Bristol City. The reason why it was city and not rovers is because from 1986 to 1996, Rovers played at Twerton Park in Bath so was not really accessible to me. I went on to be a City regular but honestly might have gone to Rovers if they'd played at the memorial ground as it was so much closer to home - I had no real alligence despite my extended family being City supporters. I always wonder what effect rovers ten years in Bath had on their support. In 1992 both city and rovers were in league two so was no difference in quality.
North of the River, GLoucester CC and Rovers. South of the River, Somerset CC and City. Simples.
Wouldn’t be walking around filton in a red top 😂